"Heroic" House Rules

Maybe make cantrips dependant on the spells memorized? For example, if you’ve memorized a fire spell, you’ll be able to produce a small flame (such as from a lighter) from your fingers tip at will.

Yes, that is the idea. In my examples above, you would have to have the Light spell in your repertoire to be able to cast the cantrip example I gave.

for #4:
just don’t make them magic items. what’s the difference between finding a ring that gives you the ability to cast jump or knock once per day in a dragon’s hoard vs. the act of slaying a dragon being such a monumental feat that you become a warrior so fierce you can simply do that? same with spider climb, giant strength, just about anything that involves enhancing physical capabilities. They also can’t turn around and sell such boons for money, nor can their companions loot their amazing skills from their body when they die.

Except, perhaps, by eating their hearts to gain their strength…

There’s an old reference work for a Conanization of OD&D at the bottom of this page:

http://www.grey-elf.com/

including a lot of simple house rules that would be applicable still in ACKS/BX. There’s two documents; one focused on sorcery.

Jard, I love this idea. But how do you implement in play?

With a magic item, you can give a +1 sword. One member of the party gets it. How do you give out a +1 to hit and damage bonus in a way that one member of the party gets it? If it’s training, why isn’t it available to everyone?

Does one end up creating a 4E-style “Powers” tree from which characters pick at defined levels, instead of having magic weapons?
Does one use 3.5-style “inherent bonuses” to replace magic items?

(Replying to both in one)

I don’t know Crypts and Things, so I have no idea how similar they are in play!

It is very similar to the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana version, for a reason :wink: The 3.5 Unearthed Arcana is a reprint/rework/expanded version of the same rules. Some differences may also have arisen from the fact that I was just posting them off the top of my head and might not have been 100% accurate to RAW.

In fact many of these things are possible once you realize magic items don’t have to be magic items. I can think of a few scenarios off the top of my head.

First, perhaps everyone DOES get it, but at a cost, the cost being the price of a +1 weapon, which must be paid in order to hire 1 on 1 attention from an ancient fighting master who can teach you his ways. One month or more of study may be necessary, in fact the time spent “crafting” it may require not only the master, but the student.

This leads to all sorts of potential madness, such as a fighting type performing “spell research” to discover new fighting styles, which he then teaches to others who seek him out.

But if all that’s a little bit too out there, you could simply do something like giving whatever benefit you’ve concocted to the person who scored the killing blow, or to whoever built enough of a rapport with the grouchy martials arts master who is only willing to teach one student (and learning it is much different from being enough of a master to teach it).

4e also did “inherent bonuses” for dark*sun, so it’s certainly not unheard of. I think the reason you don’t see it much in old school is twofold: 1) nobody thought of it yet and 2) the +s weren’t essential to the math of being able to hit things yet.

You should be able to do low magic and then life is just difficult but feasible for old-school PCs. However if you know your PCs will be sad if they don’t get a carrot every once in a while but you want the FEEL of low-magic, you could use some substitutions like the ones proposed above.

As regards 4, you could also use non-magical but significant items in their place. The Imperial Seal, Adamant Crown of the Old Kings, Battle Standard of the First Republic, and such aren’t important because they’re magical - they’re important because they’re symbolic, and impart moral authority to their possessor. The nobility is also likely to seek them, and to have the cash to purchase them from the PCs.

One thing I’ve also done successfully is providing rare books as treasure. Each such book covers a single topic in detail, and a week’s study provides answers to a number of questions based on the quality of the book (which may be used immediately or saved for later). Information that lets you win a fight is on par with a magic sword for effectiveness, if not style.

Brilliant stuff. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Definitely! In a 3.5 campaign I ran a few years ago, rare books where the mechanism by which you “unlocked” feats and classes from the splat-books, and also contained information from the setting.

These are all ideas it would be cool to eventually incorporate into “heroic acks”.

Thanks for this link koewn! I skimmed through both pdfs last night and there is certainly inspiration in them.

I’m thinking that if you want to truly convey a sword & sorcery styled game that features larger than life characters as the PCs, you’re going to have to address the default concepts of magic. The Acheron supplement proposes the best “magic taint” concept I’ve seen to date. I really want to include that concept in some fashion in my campaign. After giving it some thought, I’ve come up with the following. The use of magic can be organized into three categories:

Benevolent Magic = Light Magic = White Magic
Indistinct Magic = Shadow Magic = Grey Magic
Malevolent Magic = Dark Magic = Black Magic

Not new… but I think this type of framework to hang magic on will work really well with recreating a setting which has the feel of Middle Earth or the Hyborian Age. I’ll post more.

This is similar to how this is done in Crypts & Things, a system I love. I had some thoughts about doing something inspired by it in ACKS for Barbarian Conqueror King but decided to keep the current system for the sake of making BCK as compatible with ACKS as possible. The idea is:

  1. No Arcane/Divine divide. All spellcaster classes use the Sorcerer class category, which has the same XP and point requirements as a Cleric, but casts and learns spells as a Mage, and does not include Turn Undead (which becomes a spell). Why use the easier progression (as Clerics need less XP than Mages to go up in levels)? Because of what I present below, i.e. many of the combat spells are DANGEROUS and a Lawful caster will never cast them. Also I wanted sorcerers with swords…

  2. Spells are divided into three categories: White (Lawful), Grey (Neutral) and Black (Chaotic). Lawful characters may learn only White and Grey magicks, Chaotic characters may learn only Grey and Black magicks, and Neutral characters may learn any spell. BUT Lawful characters get bonuses (maybe faster progression?) for Lawful spells, and Chaotic characters get bonuses for Chaotic spells.

  3. White spells are all spells which restore an object or body to its initial state (e.g. healing), plus divinations and protection spells. Grey spells are most utility spells that distort reality to a degree (e.g. levitation, flight, illusions and so on). Black spells increase entropy in a massive way (e.g. fireballs) or tamper with life or death in a way related to undeath (e.g. necromancy).

  4. Casting White spells is as usual. When casting Grey spells, the caster loses 1hp per spell level cast; a successful save vs. spells halves this (round up). When casting Black spells, the caster loses 1hp per spell level, no save allowed for this, AND must save vs. spells or lose 1 sanity (starting sanity is equal to Wisdom; when it reaches 0, roll on a “mortal mental effects” table for madness).

Yes golan, the Conan hack for OD&D that koewn provided the link to is very similar to that.

Right now, I’m thinking of using the white, grey, black magic concept more as an organizational tool to differentiate caster-types rather than making outright house rules on the matter.

For example, black magic is practiced by “mages of the black cabal” and they have their own sets of spells, such as all the necromantic and transformation spells. However, for the “sages of the white council,” such spells are forbidden, though maybe they have a few scrolls of them secreted away deep in the dungeons of their citadel hidden from those who would wish to use them!

I’m also wondering if I should re-skin the cleric class into divine spirits given mortal form (i.e. a Maiar equivalent).

Okay, so I’ve made a revision to character starting ability scores, and added a couple more. I got a chance to try them out this past weekend and I’m quite happy with most of them.

A change:
Starting Character Ability Scores:
I made the following changes:

  • The total of all your scores added together must equal 72.
  • The cumulative bonus from all your scores added together must not exceed +3.
  • No score may be higher than 16.
  • No score may be less than 7.

Essentially, this equates to 3.5’s elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8), but is far more flexible.

Something new:
INCREASING ABILITY SCORES
Starting at 3rd level, when a PC reaches a new level, the player may increase one of his ability scores by 1 point. You cannot increase the same score two levels in a row. No score may be raised higher than a total of 2 points above its original total.

This results in a PC (at least one with 14 levels) having all original scores eventually increased by 2, although the player has control over how the increase happens.

Something new:
HEROIC SURGE
Once per day, at the beginning of any round, a PC may declare a heroic surge. He immediately regains 1 HD + Level worth of hit points. These hit points are temporary hit points and damage is dealt to them first. They last for 1 turn. The PC cannot declare a heroic surge if he is at 0 or less hit points.

This got used in the session, and I was very happy with how it worked and felt in the context of the adventure. With the goal of mitigating the prevalence and dependency of magical healing (potions, wands, clerics, etc.), mechanic-wise, this is more-or-less equates to giving everyone one “potion of healing” or one “cure light wounds” each day. I reserve the right to have important NPCs make use of it as well.

I’m still not sold on my Dodge/Parry mechanic idea. It was there, but did not get any use. I love the chart and the idea of dodging and parrying being options, but I haven’t yet found a good way to include any of it yet.

I’m also considering something along the lines of a critical hit mechanic, but not in the traditional sense. I don’t really want a mechanic that simply deals more damage, but instead does the following:

  1. enhance the combat experience… perhaps the dodge/parry chart becomes an exceptional hit chart? A problem there is that I almost feel I would need two charts: one for humanoids and one for monsters.
  2. make use of degrees of success… attack throws succeeding by 5+, 10+, etc., so that very good attack throws are rewarded for succeeding by a very high amount.

Another thought is to keep a “critical hit” within the same damage range as a normal hit, but have it be more likely to deal higher damage within that range:

succeed by 5+: roll two damage dice, and choose the highest result
succeed by 10+: roll three damage dice and choose the highest result
etc…

Example:
A fighter attacks using a sword two-handed. He needs an 8+ to hit and throws a 15, succeeding by 7…
For damage, he rolls 2d8, chooses the higher result of the two, and then applies any modifiers.

Putting dodge/parry mechanic on the back burner and contemplating a critical hit mechanic:

EXCEPTIONAL HITS
Characters score exceptional hits when they succeed on their attack throws by 5 or more. For every 5 points above the score needed to hit, in addition to the attack’s normal effect, the player rolls 2d6 and consults the appropriate chart below:

Humanoids
2 Disarm*
3 Knockdown*
4 Wrestling* or Brawl* (50% of either)
5 Force Back*
6-8 No additional effect
9 Wardrobe Malfunction
10 Damaged Armor
11 Damaged Weapon
12 Injured Appendage/Organ

Monsters
2 Injured Appendage/Organ
3 Injured Hide
4 Wrestling**
5 Give Ground
6-8 No additional effect
9 Brawl*
10 Knockdown*
11 Injured Attack
12 Injured Appendage/Organ

Note: If a rolled result does not apply to the target, treat the result for humanoids as FORCE BACK and treat the result for monsters as GIVE GROUND.

DAMAGED ARMOR
The target’s armor or shield is damaged – reduce its effectiveness by 1. A shield is the target 75% of the time if there’s a choice. Damaged armor can be repaired at a cost of 10gp per point of effectiveness. Armor that loses all effectiveness is ruined.

DAMAGED WEAPON
The target’s weapon suffers damage (-1 to hit or to damage determined randomly). Damaged weapons can be repaired for 25% of their cost, per penalty. If a weapon is damaged 4 times in this way, it is ruined.

GIVE GROUND
The monster must move back 5’. If this would do further harm to the monster (such as moving over a cliff), it gets a save vs. Paralysis to avoid the effect.

INJURED APPENDAGE/ORGAN
A significant part of the target’s body is at risk of injury. The target must save vs. Paralysis or have the chosen appendage/organ injured for the rest of the fight. The GM chooses what is targeted according to the situation and determines what the actual hindrance will be for the target.

INJURED ATTACK
One of the monster’s attacks (determined randomly) is temporarily incapacitated for 1d6 rounds. If the monster has only one attack, it gets a save vs. Paralysis to avoid this effect.

INJURED HIDE
The monster’s hide has been damaged, such that its AC is reduced by 1 for the rest of the fight.

WARDROBE MALFUNCTION
An article of clothing, jewelry, or exposed item (backpack, belt pouch, etc) gets damaged.

  • If one of these special maneuvers is rolled, the character gets a free attempt to perform it if he wants to. The character does not make an additional attack roll – just the save vs. Paralysis is rolled (if required).
    ** In the case of Wrestling a large creature, the GM may allow the character to “climb” onto the monster.

Very cool! I like how it makes the combats more interesting without making them more deadly. My only concern is that some of them will have a huge variance in effect depending on the judge, especially damage to items and appendages.

,

Thank You Alex. Interesting “crits” that give an advantage that’s something else besides doing more damage is certainly the goal. I see what you’re saying about the potential huge variance in damaged items and appendages, but I’m hoping the variance to be a feature rather than a bug. I’m worried that codifying it too much would make the whole a bit unwieldy and restrict narrative/spontaneous play. Perhaps listing examples would help.

Hey Jard, I’ve been thinking about this, it’s a really great idea for a mythic campaign. I’m slowly reading “The Saga of the Volsungs”, and Sigurd eating the dragon’s heart and thus gaining the ability to understand the speech of birds is a perfect example of this. I also recall D&D’s Castle Amber having a few encounters where PCs could get permanent benefits that didn’t involve receiving an actual magic item.